|2/1/2013 1:46:00 PM|
Not about hunting
In the course of conversations I have had with people on the Second Amendment and our right to "Keep and Bear Arms" during the past few weeks, a misunderstanding of its intent comes up again and again.
I even heard a senator on the national news say that he was for the Second Amendment and hunted ducks, but that the American Public does not need semi-automatic weapons for hunting.
He is missing the point.
If we actually study the written thoughts and intent of the framers of our Constitution, we can see the Second Amendment is not about hunting - it's about self-protection and safeguarding others, not only from horribly tragic incidents like the Connecticut massacre or armed robbery, but protection from tyrannical governments.
The Right to Bear Arms is inherent in the right of self-defense, the defense of the family, and defense against tyranny. It was recognition of this "self-evident" truth that led to the enactment of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.
Draconian laws or executive orders placed against this fundamental right by both State and Federal Governments are in direct contradiction to the spirit and the letter of those organic documents and are incompatible with the ideals of a free state.
The men who founded our National Government thought the right of self-defense so important, they placed it second in the Bill of Rights. They considered the Right to Freedom of Speech the only thing more important. I would urge people to study and become informed about the Second Amendment in its history, scope and intent. A good source of information is, "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adams. It's "A citizens guidebook to the history, sources, and authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
It was published in 1996 by Palladium Press in Birmingham, Alabama. In closing, I will leave you with two quotes. These are the words of two men who governed in the 20th Century, in different countries and with views that were in great opposition to one another.
Hubert H. Humphrey stated, "The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
In stark contrast, we have this statement, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." These are the words of Adolf Hitler.
Which government would you choose to live under?
John C. Gordon
Article Comment Submission Form